David J. Hendry

The decision-theoretic Downsian model and other related accounts predict that increasing perceptions of election closeness will increase turnout. Does this prediction hold? Past observational and experimental tests raise generalizability and credible inference issues. Prior field experiments either (1) compare messages emphasizing election closeness to non-closeness messages, potentially conflating changes in closeness perceptions with framing effects of the voter encouragement message, or (2) deliver information about a particular race’s closeness, potentially altering beliefs about the features of that election apart from its closeness. We address the limitations of prior work in a large-scale field experiment conducted in seven states and find that a telephone message describing a class of contests as decided by fewer, as opposed to more, votes increases voter turnout. Furthermore, this effect exceeds that of a standard election reminder. The results imply expected electoral closeness affects turnout and that perceptions of closeness can be altered to increase participation.

One of the most important recent developments in social psychology is the discovery of minor interventions that have large and enduring effects on behavior. A leading example of this class of results is in the work by Bryan et al. [Bryan CJ, Walton GM, Rogers T, Dweck CS (2011) *Proc Natl Acad Sci USA* 108(31):12653–12656], which shows that administering a set of survey items worded so that subjects think of themselves as voters (noun treatment) rather than as voting (verb treatment) substantially increases political participation (voter turnout) among subjects. We revisit these experiments by replicating and extending their research design in a large-scale field experiment. In contrast to the 11 to 14% point greater turnout among those exposed to the noun rather than the verb treatment reported in the work by Bryan et al., we find no statistically significant difference in turnout between the noun and verb treatments (the point estimate of the difference is approximately zero). Furthermore, when we benchmark these treatments against a standard get out the vote message, we estimate that both are less effective at increasing turnout than a much shorter basic mobilization message. In our conclusion, we detail how our study differs from the work by Bryan et al. and discuss how our results might be interpreted.

An underlying assumption of proportional hazards models is that the effect of a change in a covariate on the hazard rate of event occurrence is constant over time. For scholars using the Cox model, a Schoenfeld residual-based test has become the disciplinary standard for detecting violations of this assumption. However, using this test requires researchers to make a choice about a transformation of the time scale. In practice, this choice has largely consisted of arbitrary decisions made without justification. Using replications and simulations, we demonstrate that the decision about time transformations can have profound implications for the conclusions reached. In particular, we show that researchers can make far more informed decisions by paying closer attention to the presence of outlier survival times and levels of censoring in their data. We suggest a new standard for best practices in Cox diagnostics that buttresses the current standard with in-depth exploratory data analysis.